Wardlaw v. McConnell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Continuance. New trial. Before Judge Harvey. Chattooga Superior Court. March Term, 1872. Martha A. McConnell, as executrix upon the estate of William McConnell, deceased, brought complaint against Joseph M. Wardlaw, on a note dated January 18th, 1858, due one day after the date thereof, payable to J. T. McConnell, executor, for $726. The defendant pleaded the general issue, payment and set-off.
Read the full summary
Continuance. New trial. Before Judge Harvey. Chattooga Superior Court. March Term, 1872. Martha A. McConnell, as executrix upon the estate of William McConnell, deceased, brought complaint against Joseph M. Wardlaw, on a note dated January 18th, 1858, due one day after the date thereof, payable to J. T. McConnell, executor, for $726. The defendant pleaded the general issue, payment and set-off. When the case was called for trial, defendant moved for a continuance upon the following showing, to-wit: that he had ordered a subpoena for Joel K. Sanders to be served by the sheriff before last…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
The continuance of a case is, by the statute, placed at the discretion of the Court. True, this Court will inquire into the exercise of that discretion, and if it has been improperly made use of to the injury of the party losing the case at the final hearing, this Court will interfere. Still, we must, from the nature of the case, give every presumption to the decision of the Court. In this case, the showing has the serious defect that it does not show any subpoena to have issued. All that is said is, that the defendant ordered a subpoena to be served. To whom did he give…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Long v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1920
- Betenbo v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916